Author: Riley Kimball
On January 31, Super PACs were required to disclose the names of major donors. With just 22 people comprising roughly half of all contributions, money stands to be the great determinant of the Congressional agenda. Mitt Romney’s claim that “corporations are people, my friend,” seems to jeopardize the idea of “one person, one vote,” but in reality, universal suffrage is increasingly a wistful abstraction. Money spent convincing voters one way or another to push legislation increases the influence of those with extra capital. Votes follow money, so that the most attentive representation goes not to the people with the most benevolent, human interests in mind but rather to the people with the assets to behave like corporations. Without major reforms in campaign finance, such as a switch to public financing of campaigns, democracy in America will end up in the hands of a small few.
Those who donate to campaigns have an enormous influence on politicians. To maintain the financial backing of a major campaign contributor, senators and congressmen must cater to the donor’s interests. This influence was once tempered by limits on donations to campaigns. An individual, company or PAC could donate no more than $5000, so candidates had to appeal to a broad base. Obama was able to collect more money through the many small donations of citizens than through large contributions from companies. But as a result of the “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission” decision, a single corporation has the ability to donate more than entire cities worth of voters can contribute. Would a politician really worry about the constituents donating $50 when a single company contributes $5 million?
Prioritizing major donors’ interests over constituents recently came to light in the public fight against PIPA and SOPA. Despite overwhelmingly negative public opinion of the bills, Rep. Harry Reid (D-Nevada) and Sen. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) continued to push the respective bills through their committees. These two are major benefactors of the music, TV and movie industries’ campaign contributions, and they continued calling for a vote in the face of fellow committee members’ attempts to table them. It was not until Google, Conde Nast and other major corporations on the other side of the debate entered the fray that the bills were put to rest.
This is not to say that the individual citizen has little democratic representation. Such a person, however, must be equipped like a corporation. For example, take Las Vegas magnate and the world’s 16th richest person, Sheldon Adelson. He and his wife have recently each contributed $5 million to pro-Newt Gingrich Super PACs because of his hardline pro-Israel stance. Adelson’s money will support Gingrich in maintaining his untempered position.
This hardlining effect is measurable, too. Recently, Congress has been more gridlocked than in years and decades past, passing few bills and voting strictly down party lines. No one is willing to compromise or negotiate. Assuming that congressional approval ratings are an adequate measure of how effective or frustratingly ineffective Congress is at the moment, it is interesting to note that since the “Citizens United” vote, the rating has almost consistently declined.
It does not seem to be a leap to assume that politicians’ stubborn unwillingness to negotiate or compromise may be influenced by the increasing flow of money from companies with interests at stake in particularly legislation. As ordinary citizens become frustrated and call for moderation and compromise, the money-supported hardline stances bring Congress to a stalemate. Constituencies like the Tea Party have gained considerable sway, aggressively pushing their agenda with the backing of billionaires like Rupert Murdoch and the Koch brothers. Such influence would be impossible without the money pouring in from the top, but if less personal wealth were at stake, congressmen might compromise more readily.
The solutions to these problems are not out of reach. Campaign finance reform is an easy starting point: allot each candidate a certain amount of taxpayer money to campaign for a short window before the election. This public financing system is used in England, and though it is not without flaws, it diminishes the influence of personal wealth on public servants. Requiring full disclosure of campaign donors when donations happen, not weeks after primary season begins, would serve as an effective stopgap measure to make voters aware of their representatives’ patronage.
Convincing people who set their own salary of these reforms will not be easy, but if democracy is to continue functioning, it must pass. Perhaps it is time that the average senator have a net worth closer to the average American, rather than the extravagant $2.56 million recently reported by ABC News. Six senators have put forth a constitutional amendment reversing the decision of “Citizens United,” suggesting that there may be hope. More than anything, though, it is time for citizens to become active, contact their representatives and remind them that they serve not the private sector but rather the public good.
With elections fast approaching, it is more important than ever to push for reforms. If November makes a farce out of American democracy, it may be too late to recover.
Riley Kimball is a senior Diplomacy and World Affairs major. He can be reached at kimball@oxy.edu.
This article has been archived, for more requests please contact us via the support system.
